Talk:Theology of Anabaptism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Anabaptist work group. (with unknown importance) | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Theology work group. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Differences among Anabaptists
There are various anabaptist groups. No one anabaptist denomination can speak for all anabaptists.I have also noted in other material that not all anabaptists spoke theologicaly but rather expressed their beliefs in confessions of faith and debated with other christians their 'position' on certain topics e.g communion. The words 'Contempory anabaptism' is relative only to the denomination which is presenting their ideas. No one anabaptist denomination can speak for all anabaptists. There are various types of Mennonites, conservative, progressive etc. Each has their own particular 'brand' of theology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.249.204 (talk) 01:17, October 6, 2007
- True, but the idea here is simply to cover many of the significant common beliefs. For example, all modern Anabaptists have some form of "peace church" tradition, even if some have drifted away from their traditional pacifist stance. Where beliefs diverge, readers can be directed to the appropriate articles on specific groups. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Not only have some drifted away from their traditional pacifist, or should I say 'peace making' stance, but some anabaptists do not not seem to understand the significance of what anabaptism is. For example in a recent (Australian) ABC program it was thought by some that anabaptism can be expressed by Catholics, a church that has enshrined their 'just war' theology, (and infant baptism) in the their current catechism.Any catholic that thinks otherwise is not considered in full communion with the catholic church and should not receive communion.I assume these anabaptist -catholics do receive communion when they go to Mass. So the idea of catholics and other 'just war'and infant 'baptism' denominations embracing anabaptist ideals is a farce as far as I am concerned. As Tertullian stated in 197 AD,'The Christian does no harm even to his foe'. I can fully understand how some 'anabaptists' can be seen to have lost the plot. Also you might want to check out what christian denomination the defence minister of Holland was prior to the second world war. Another interesting exercise is looking at how some anabaptists voted prior to Bush being elected. I refer you to a recent 'The Mennonite' magazine' article on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.255.112 (talk) 03:25, October 10, 2007
- Keep in mind that this article is about theology, not public opinion, though. Because of some of the rules here about sources, it would be difficult to tie things like voting habits to theological beliefs, unless there are writings from reliable sources that make a case using that data. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
These days 'worldly' popular public opinion seems to be driving theology rather than scripture and the Holy Spirit(e.g political correctness), therefore it seems that theology looks for feed back from society. Both seem to be feeding off each other. Therefore today, I believe, public opinion has become inseparable from theology.A Theological view point seems to live or die based on what values the world has or wants, when a particular theology arrives on the scene. So therefore to see trends in theology one need only do the research and then tie it to sociology. Augustine did not become a victim of the cult of popularity by NOT preaching that war could be justified.His 'just war' philosophy seems to have been popular at the time and so it thrived, as is the philosophy of peace making, for now. As in most dramas, the actors perform to an audience, otherwise the actor's popularity dies. Anabaptism became popular because poeple were dying from hunger and oppression.They were not concerned with theology.(you can't eat theology).They needed a church that practised what scripture taught about love in action, not in words alone, and a church which was guided by the Holy Spirit. Not that type of theology which is intellectually stimulating and acceptable to the academic world and which I believe we are now witnessing again today in the 'peace making' philosophy. Conservative minded people who are Christian want to be guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit, not by popular opinion or academic self indulgence which is taught to others so as to make their Christianity seem 'relevent' to today's so called 'modern' weatern world. A western world of lonliness and lack of social connectiveness, and selfish indifference to others in the very suburbs in which they live. A confession of faith formed by agreements between members of a congregation/church is one thing, 'theology' is quite a different species.Grass roots practises, such as hospitality, and a sense that someone cares are what made Christianity popular amongst the people of the Roman Empire, not theology. I believe Christianity started to die the minute philosophy in theology became more important than people's needs.Hence, I believe meeting people's needs were the driving force behind anabaptism, not theology.Those needs differ from country to country, but anabaptistism's practise of hospitality is what is needed in the west, not peace making or theology.
- It's certainly true that public opinion often affects theology in various ways, but what does that have to do with this particular article? Discussing subjects not related to improving the articles is strongly discouraged here. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think my comments are not relevent here. After all we are talking about anabaptist theology and how and why it evolved are we not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.255.112 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
